The aid that the US has promised to the Syrian rebels will strictly be of the "non-lethal" variety, we are being told, but it has dissolved into farce when one State Department official said the aid would include “anything from radios for local police to schoolbooks that you’re trying to buy for kids.”
Seriously? Aid for rebels engaged in a fight to the death for two years against a dictatorship is to consist of school books for kids?
Friday, March 1, 2013
Can You Spell Hyperbole?
The hyperventilation about the spending cuts is really getting out of hand. You should hear the wailing in San Diego, which has shipyards and lots of other defense contractors in addition to the world’s largest US Navy base. Now we’ll never get a new stadium for the Chargers. Hell, we may not even be able to operate the old one.
There’s a guy over at Mish’s Global Economics who, as you might expect from the title, has a little larger viewpoint that the American one of “how does this affect my own personal job?”
He points out that in 2006 government spending was $2.6 trillion. In 2008 it had gone up to $2.9 trillion, an increase of "only" 12.2% in two years. He points out that this is not caused by inflation, because the Fed is bragging about how they have successfully held inflation to 2% for the past several decades. That’s pretty hilarious in itself, but is a separate subject.
Then the financial crisis hit and we had a “one-time” boost in spending that raised government spending to $3.5 trillion, an 18% increase over 2008, but no less than 36% over just three years earlier in 2006. The stock market loved it, of course, but it really hasn’t done much for the middle class in terms of wages or number of jobs.
He then points out that government spending has then stayed at $3.5 trillion or more ever since. The “one-time stimulus” continued into 2010, 2011, 2012, and now into 2013. Nobody actually voted for a budget to spend that much, it just continued that way because nobody voted to stop it. It has continued because of a series of “continuing resolutions” passed by a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, and signed into execution by a Democratic President.
How many times did I name the Democratic Party there? Right.
So now we hit a point where we are having to cut $85 billion of that spending, and all hell is breaking loose. We are, all sides are claiming, destroying the economy with this $85 billion cut in spending. That $85 billion represents 2.5% of total government spending, and 6.5% of the increase since 2008.
Think about it; 2.5% leads us to financial Armageddon. Madness.
There’s a guy over at Mish’s Global Economics who, as you might expect from the title, has a little larger viewpoint that the American one of “how does this affect my own personal job?”
He points out that in 2006 government spending was $2.6 trillion. In 2008 it had gone up to $2.9 trillion, an increase of "only" 12.2% in two years. He points out that this is not caused by inflation, because the Fed is bragging about how they have successfully held inflation to 2% for the past several decades. That’s pretty hilarious in itself, but is a separate subject.
Then the financial crisis hit and we had a “one-time” boost in spending that raised government spending to $3.5 trillion, an 18% increase over 2008, but no less than 36% over just three years earlier in 2006. The stock market loved it, of course, but it really hasn’t done much for the middle class in terms of wages or number of jobs.
He then points out that government spending has then stayed at $3.5 trillion or more ever since. The “one-time stimulus” continued into 2010, 2011, 2012, and now into 2013. Nobody actually voted for a budget to spend that much, it just continued that way because nobody voted to stop it. It has continued because of a series of “continuing resolutions” passed by a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, and signed into execution by a Democratic President.
How many times did I name the Democratic Party there? Right.
So now we hit a point where we are having to cut $85 billion of that spending, and all hell is breaking loose. We are, all sides are claiming, destroying the economy with this $85 billion cut in spending. That $85 billion represents 2.5% of total government spending, and 6.5% of the increase since 2008.
Think about it; 2.5% leads us to financial Armageddon. Madness.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Potpourri
I saw the pulmanologist yesterday. He finally said I am getting better, although the pace at which I am doing so can best be described as glacial. He's a good guy, but I wish he would quit referring to my lungs as the "left disaster zone" and the "right disaster zone." These lungs have been down many miles of very bad road and deserve more respect than that.
I watched Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday. I have no idea why I did that, but I'm certainly not going to do it again any time soon.
I'm enjoying reading about the snowstorms in the Midwest and Eastern US. Temperature is in the 70's right now, and is forecast to be in the 80's over the next few days. Offshore breezes but no significant fire danger.
Our government is developing fear mongering to a real art form these days. Releasing illegal immigrants because we can't afford to keep them in prison. Awesome, considering that we can afford tracking anklets for them and daily calls to parole officers. We are supposed to be frightened about cutbacks in the TSA, but I actually regard that as a benefit. China will be invading Hawaii soon because the Navy had to pull back to the California coast; couldn't affortd to patrol the Pacific due to a 2% cutback in defense spending.
Europe is crumbling into dust, China is more or less crashing, Japan is slowing from a walk to a crawl, but not to worry; Bernanke is keeping the "stimulus" going, so the stock market will boom and our economy will be just awesome. Hordes of people will continue to be unemployed, of course, and those who have jobs will have lousy pay, but that has nothing to do with the economy, so just shut up about jobs.
I watched Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday. I have no idea why I did that, but I'm certainly not going to do it again any time soon.
I'm enjoying reading about the snowstorms in the Midwest and Eastern US. Temperature is in the 70's right now, and is forecast to be in the 80's over the next few days. Offshore breezes but no significant fire danger.
Our government is developing fear mongering to a real art form these days. Releasing illegal immigrants because we can't afford to keep them in prison. Awesome, considering that we can afford tracking anklets for them and daily calls to parole officers. We are supposed to be frightened about cutbacks in the TSA, but I actually regard that as a benefit. China will be invading Hawaii soon because the Navy had to pull back to the California coast; couldn't affortd to patrol the Pacific due to a 2% cutback in defense spending.
Europe is crumbling into dust, China is more or less crashing, Japan is slowing from a walk to a crawl, but not to worry; Bernanke is keeping the "stimulus" going, so the stock market will boom and our economy will be just awesome. Hordes of people will continue to be unemployed, of course, and those who have jobs will have lousy pay, but that has nothing to do with the economy, so just shut up about jobs.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Getting It Right
The traditional command for starting engines before a NASCAR race has been, "Gentlemen, start your engines." Not altogether accurate, since few stock car drivers were historically gentlemen, but close enough. When women entered the sport it was changed to "Drivers, start your engines," which seems reasonable enough.
And then along came Danica Patrick. I think the Grand Marshall today meant to say, "Gentlemen and Danica, start your engines," which I think would have been in poor taste but in line with the Danicamania that prevails today. What he said though was, "Drivers and Danica, start your engines," which would imply that Danica is not a driver. Freudian slip?
And then along came Danica Patrick. I think the Grand Marshall today meant to say, "Gentlemen and Danica, start your engines," which I think would have been in poor taste but in line with the Danicamania that prevails today. What he said though was, "Drivers and Danica, start your engines," which would imply that Danica is not a driver. Freudian slip?
More Victims of Stupid Driving
The Nationwide race ended, as has become almost routine now, with a terrible wreck on the last lap when one driver tried to prevent another from passing him by moving suddenly sideways to in front of the passing car, a move known as “blocking.” As is also almost routine, he made to move too late, hitting the passing car instead of blocking him, turning himself sideways and causing a massive pileup of the cars behind them. As stupid as it is, blocking is not against the rules established by NASCAR.
This one also sent a car airborne and into the catchfence. Everything in front of the windshield was torn off of the car, and the engine and both front wheels along with all of the surrounding sheet metal was thrown into the crowd of spectators. The driver was unhurt, but two dozen spectators were injured, some of them seriously.
Tony Stewart won the race, and as he climbed out of his car in victory circle he was not smiling and was not happy. “As much as we want to celebrate now and as much as this is a big deal for all of us, I'm more worried about the drivers and the fans in the stands right now,” he said. "We've always known since racing was started this was a dangerous sport, but as drivers we assume that risk, and it's hard when the fans get caught up in it." Thoughtful words from a sensible driver.
Regan Smith who caused the wreck by trying to block Brad Keselowski as Brad was passing him was completely unrepentant, saying that “I did what I had to do, and I would do it again, absolutely.” The man is an idiot.
NASCAR must outlaw blocking, especially on the restrictor plate tracks at Talledega and Daytona. It is dangerous, and someday it is going to kill someone. NASCAR has its head buried in the sand, claiming that it is too difficult to enforce, or that it would be a “judgement call,” or that there is some merit in blocking. All of that is nonsensical, and they should not be waiting until someone dies before that take action. We lost Dale Earnhardt because NASCAR was complacent, and we don’t need to lose anyone else because of their complacency and stupidity.
NASCAR claims to be "committed to safety," and yet they permit a practice which unquestioanly has caused many terrible wrecks, and which is without question the sole cause of yesterday's wreck which injured two dozen spectators. So long as they permit this dangerous, lethal practice any claim they make about being "committed to safety" is utter bullshit.
IndyCar outlaws blocking and that sport is better off, and is safer, for that rule. They know blocking when they see it, and drivers never raise any sort of major complaint when the rule is invoked. NASCAR claims to be a leader on motor sports, but they are not even a competent follower. NASCAR: outlaw blocking now.
This one also sent a car airborne and into the catchfence. Everything in front of the windshield was torn off of the car, and the engine and both front wheels along with all of the surrounding sheet metal was thrown into the crowd of spectators. The driver was unhurt, but two dozen spectators were injured, some of them seriously.
Tony Stewart won the race, and as he climbed out of his car in victory circle he was not smiling and was not happy. “As much as we want to celebrate now and as much as this is a big deal for all of us, I'm more worried about the drivers and the fans in the stands right now,” he said. "We've always known since racing was started this was a dangerous sport, but as drivers we assume that risk, and it's hard when the fans get caught up in it." Thoughtful words from a sensible driver.
Regan Smith who caused the wreck by trying to block Brad Keselowski as Brad was passing him was completely unrepentant, saying that “I did what I had to do, and I would do it again, absolutely.” The man is an idiot.
NASCAR must outlaw blocking, especially on the restrictor plate tracks at Talledega and Daytona. It is dangerous, and someday it is going to kill someone. NASCAR has its head buried in the sand, claiming that it is too difficult to enforce, or that it would be a “judgement call,” or that there is some merit in blocking. All of that is nonsensical, and they should not be waiting until someone dies before that take action. We lost Dale Earnhardt because NASCAR was complacent, and we don’t need to lose anyone else because of their complacency and stupidity.
NASCAR claims to be "committed to safety," and yet they permit a practice which unquestioanly has caused many terrible wrecks, and which is without question the sole cause of yesterday's wreck which injured two dozen spectators. So long as they permit this dangerous, lethal practice any claim they make about being "committed to safety" is utter bullshit.
IndyCar outlaws blocking and that sport is better off, and is safer, for that rule. They know blocking when they see it, and drivers never raise any sort of major complaint when the rule is invoked. NASCAR claims to be a leader on motor sports, but they are not even a competent follower. NASCAR: outlaw blocking now.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Thinking Broadly
Robert Reich, who is described as “one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy,” is proposing a solution to “the Social Security problem” that is certainly novel. It is insane, you understand, to the point of being along the lines of curing a headache by diving off of the Golden Gate Bridge, but it’s interesting.
His position is that when Social Security was begun there were five workers for every retiree, and now there are only barely over three. Some time in the future, if present trends continue (emphasis mine), there will be only two.
First, he doesn’t mention that the “barely over three” workers are providing more income to the Social Security trust fund than is being paid out in benefits, even in a recession, nor that the fund is sufficient to pay out benefits for several decades. The “Social Security problem” is considerably less dire than it is being made out to be, and could be alleviated by removing the upper income limit on Social Security contribution.
Then there’s the “if present trends continue” bit. I was feeling very healthy a few weeks ago, and then I got pneumonia and felt very poorly indeed. On Feb 7th I would have said that “if present trends continue” I will be dead in four days. Present trends did not continue and, while I still have pneumonia and don’t feel very well yet, I am a very long way from dead. News flash Robert, “present trends” very seldom continue.
So, Robert Reich’s solution to the “Social Security problem” is (Are you ready for this?) to allow many more immigrant workers into the United States. They will be young people, he says, because foreign countries are bursting with young people, and they will therefor increase the number of workers per retiree.
Actually, of course, they will increase the number of unemployed persons per retiree, and unemployed people don’t pay into Social Security, but that’s just a minor detail. He tosses that aside with “Yes, I know: There aren’t enough jobs right now even for Americans who want and need them. But once the American economy recovers, there will be.” Bless his optimistic little heart.
Unemployment hasn't been below 4% since 1970, meaning that our present workforce has not been fully employed for four decades. So where are the jobs going to come from for all of these new immigrants that he is proposing to bring in, even if the economy does recover fully and completely? Not that anyone is suggesting that it's likely to do that before baby boomers retire.
He says that “we’ve been focusing on only one aspect of [immigration reform] – how to deal with undocumented workers.” Apparently his solution is to bring in a whole bunch of documented ones. He doesn’t say what to do with the undocumented ones.
Absolutely. If you have a headache think broadly; think about your feet. The simplest way to deal with a headache is to shoot yourself in both feet. Your feet will hurt so bad, and being crippled will be so disastrous, that you won’t notice your headache.
His position is that when Social Security was begun there were five workers for every retiree, and now there are only barely over three. Some time in the future, if present trends continue (emphasis mine), there will be only two.
First, he doesn’t mention that the “barely over three” workers are providing more income to the Social Security trust fund than is being paid out in benefits, even in a recession, nor that the fund is sufficient to pay out benefits for several decades. The “Social Security problem” is considerably less dire than it is being made out to be, and could be alleviated by removing the upper income limit on Social Security contribution.
Then there’s the “if present trends continue” bit. I was feeling very healthy a few weeks ago, and then I got pneumonia and felt very poorly indeed. On Feb 7th I would have said that “if present trends continue” I will be dead in four days. Present trends did not continue and, while I still have pneumonia and don’t feel very well yet, I am a very long way from dead. News flash Robert, “present trends” very seldom continue.
So, Robert Reich’s solution to the “Social Security problem” is (Are you ready for this?) to allow many more immigrant workers into the United States. They will be young people, he says, because foreign countries are bursting with young people, and they will therefor increase the number of workers per retiree.
Actually, of course, they will increase the number of unemployed persons per retiree, and unemployed people don’t pay into Social Security, but that’s just a minor detail. He tosses that aside with “Yes, I know: There aren’t enough jobs right now even for Americans who want and need them. But once the American economy recovers, there will be.” Bless his optimistic little heart.
Unemployment hasn't been below 4% since 1970, meaning that our present workforce has not been fully employed for four decades. So where are the jobs going to come from for all of these new immigrants that he is proposing to bring in, even if the economy does recover fully and completely? Not that anyone is suggesting that it's likely to do that before baby boomers retire.
He says that “we’ve been focusing on only one aspect of [immigration reform] – how to deal with undocumented workers.” Apparently his solution is to bring in a whole bunch of documented ones. He doesn’t say what to do with the undocumented ones.
We need to think more broadly, and connect the dots. One logical way to help deal with the crisis of funding Social Security and Medicare is to have more workers per retiree. And the simplest way to do that is to allow more immigrants into the United States.
Absolutely. If you have a headache think broadly; think about your feet. The simplest way to deal with a headache is to shoot yourself in both feet. Your feet will hurt so bad, and being crippled will be so disastrous, that you won’t notice your headache.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Negotiating In Bad Faith
Obama is planning a “media blitz” tour to decry the horrors of the “sequester,” a set of spending cuts which he signed into law last year and for which he is now blaming the Republicans. He now says the cuts are "not smart," "not fair," and that "people will lose their jobs," despite the undeniable fact that he signed them into law last year.
He goes on to say that the proper approach is a "balanced approach" debt reduction plan that includes revenue increases in the form of eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy as well as spending cuts.
Does no one remember the tax increases that occurred in January? There was a tax increase on the rich in income taxes and a tax increase on the middle class when the payroll tax cut was dropped. That was part of a two-part deal; the "balanced approach" between revenue increases and spending cuts. Spending cuts could not be agreed upon at the time, so it was agreed that spending cuts could be deferred in order to get the tax issue accomplished at the first of the year.
Now Obama is saying again that he wants a "balanced approach" between revenue and spending cuts. The tax cuts in January were not balanced. It was revenue increase and the spending cuts were deferred, and when it comes time to deal with the deferred spending cuts he renews the "balanced deal" approach. You have to be kidding me.
Not to mention that Obama swore in his reelection campaign the he would not allow taxes to be increased on the middle class. They increased the first of this year; about 1% on the rich in income taxes, and 2% on the middle class when the payroll tax cut expired. Not only did he raise taxes on the middle class, he raised them more than he did on the rich. No one is talking about that.
Back to the "sequester." That specifically was part of a three-part deal; an increase in the debt ceiling, revenue increases, and spending cuts. Obama signed off on that deal, and the spending cuts in the "sequester" were very specific at the time. Obama got the debt ceiling increase. He got the revenue the first of this year. He got the "sequester" postponed twice, and now he insists that it should not be imposed at all.
Why does Obama make a deal and then, having gotten the part of the deal that benefits him, claim that the part that is bad for him is wrong and should not be done? Let's say my neighbor and I agree to mow each other's lawns. After he mows mine, am I not obligated to mow his? Or can I say that mowing his is hard work and tiring and I'm just not going to do it?
I don't like the sequester either, but that's what Obama agreed to. I thought at the time that it was not a smart deal. I recognized that Obama was counting on the other side "blinking." He thought that when it came time to do it that the other side would back down. Well, he guessed wrong. He bluffed and they called his bluff. But that's on him. He made the deal and now he’s trying to blame them for it.
When you bluff and your bluff is called you lose.
He goes on to say that the proper approach is a "balanced approach" debt reduction plan that includes revenue increases in the form of eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy as well as spending cuts.
Does no one remember the tax increases that occurred in January? There was a tax increase on the rich in income taxes and a tax increase on the middle class when the payroll tax cut was dropped. That was part of a two-part deal; the "balanced approach" between revenue increases and spending cuts. Spending cuts could not be agreed upon at the time, so it was agreed that spending cuts could be deferred in order to get the tax issue accomplished at the first of the year.
Now Obama is saying again that he wants a "balanced approach" between revenue and spending cuts. The tax cuts in January were not balanced. It was revenue increase and the spending cuts were deferred, and when it comes time to deal with the deferred spending cuts he renews the "balanced deal" approach. You have to be kidding me.
Not to mention that Obama swore in his reelection campaign the he would not allow taxes to be increased on the middle class. They increased the first of this year; about 1% on the rich in income taxes, and 2% on the middle class when the payroll tax cut expired. Not only did he raise taxes on the middle class, he raised them more than he did on the rich. No one is talking about that.
Back to the "sequester." That specifically was part of a three-part deal; an increase in the debt ceiling, revenue increases, and spending cuts. Obama signed off on that deal, and the spending cuts in the "sequester" were very specific at the time. Obama got the debt ceiling increase. He got the revenue the first of this year. He got the "sequester" postponed twice, and now he insists that it should not be imposed at all.
Why does Obama make a deal and then, having gotten the part of the deal that benefits him, claim that the part that is bad for him is wrong and should not be done? Let's say my neighbor and I agree to mow each other's lawns. After he mows mine, am I not obligated to mow his? Or can I say that mowing his is hard work and tiring and I'm just not going to do it?
I don't like the sequester either, but that's what Obama agreed to. I thought at the time that it was not a smart deal. I recognized that Obama was counting on the other side "blinking." He thought that when it came time to do it that the other side would back down. Well, he guessed wrong. He bluffed and they called his bluff. But that's on him. He made the deal and now he’s trying to blame them for it.
When you bluff and your bluff is called you lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)